There were a couple of LEs in our three door apartment interviewing my wife about a shooting incident in the neighborhood the night before. They said they were doing house to house interviews on who may have heard or saw something.

If during that time, say I was on my way out to the garage with my rifle case, and oviously the LEs would know its a rifle case. If they ask whats inside and I do say its a rifle, can I say no if they want to see it? Being on the hallway and into the apartment garage, I dont think this is still considered private property, but having done nothing illegal, I would like to think that unless they have a warrant, then they cannot just force me to open the case?

Your thoughts?

sfpcservice

06-23-2010, 4:03 PM

"I haven't committed any crime, I do not consent to any searches, am I free to go?"

Repeat as many times as needed, never say what's in the case.

They might search you anyway.... But if they do, it is an illegal search unless they have PC or a Warrant.

That's not legal advice, it's just what I'd do.

Papa "J"

06-23-2010, 4:08 PM

Of course they can search you. They are investigating a crime of a shooting and you admit you have a gun in the case and it's in plain view.

Don't want to be asked to be searched then don't walk in front of them with a gun case...

Dr Rockso

06-23-2010, 4:11 PM

I think that a reported shooting incident plus someone carrying a rifle case would easily be PC for a search of the case. If you tell them that there's a rifle in the case then they can check to see if it's loaded per PC 12031(e), even absent of the reported shooting situation.

spaceburger

06-23-2010, 4:21 PM

There were a couple of LEs in our three door apartment interviewing my wife about a shooting incident ... I would like to think that unless they have a warrant, then they cannot just force me to open the case?
Sometimes it helps to frame the question in a different light: they show up at your residence, ask questions about a shooting, then you decide to leave your residence with weapons, they ask to see and you say no?
honestly - what do you think would happen next?
What if you were a parent, standing by to see who the police are investigating as the perp for a shooting against your family - would you say to the LEs - "oh let him go - he has rights.."?

Sinixstar

06-23-2010, 4:24 PM

Sometimes it helps to frame the question in a different light: they show up at your residence, ask questions about a shooting, then you decide to leave your residence with weapons, they ask to see and you say no?
honestly - what do you think would happen next?
What if you were a parent, standing by to see who the police are investigating as the perp for a shooting against your family - would you say to the LEs - "oh let him go - he has rights.."?

exactly.

One of the best ways to avoid a conflict with the police : don't act guilty.

pullnshoot25

06-23-2010, 4:26 PM

There were a couple of LEs in our three door apartment interviewing my wife about a shooting incident in the neighborhood the night before. They said they were doing house to house interviews on who may have heard or saw something.

If during that time, say I was on my way out to the garage with my rifle case, and oviously the LEs would know its a rifle case. If they ask whats inside and I do say its a rifle, can I say no if they want to see it? Being on the hallway and into the apartment garage, I dont think this is still considered private property, but having done nothing illegal, I would like to think that unless they have a warrant, then they cannot just force me to open the case?

Your thoughts?

2nd poster had it right.

Check my blog for my recent "gun in a bag" encounter. I gave a critique of it so read it carefully.

SixPointEight

06-23-2010, 4:30 PM

Sometimes it helps to frame the question in a different light: they show up at your residence, ask questions about a shooting, then you decide to leave your residence with weapons, they ask to see and you say no?
honestly - what do you think would happen next?
What if you were a parent, standing by to see who the police are investigating as the perp for a shooting against your family - would you say to the LEs - "oh let him go - he has rights.."?

Do I see the "think of the children" argument?

OP: Given the context, that they are asking about a shooting, you admitted there's a rifle in the case, I think they have RAS to detain you at that point. If you admit there's a rifle in the case they can do a "e check" no matter the situation.

pullnshoot25

06-23-2010, 4:34 PM

Of course they can search you. They are investigating a crime of a shooting and you admit you have a gun in the case and it's in plain view.

Don't want to be asked to be searched then don't walk in front of them with a gun case...

Sometimes it helps to frame the question in a different light: they show up at your residence, ask questions about a shooting, then you decide to leave your residence with weapons, they ask to see and you say no?
honestly - what do you think would happen next?
What if you were a parent, standing by to see who the police are investigating as the perp for a shooting against your family - would you say to the LEs - "oh let him go - he has rights.."?

Really? Really?

spaceburger

06-23-2010, 4:36 PM

Do I see the "think of the children" argument? ..
No not at all - View the situation through someone else eyes – try and get perspective on your situation. In this case: public opinion - citizen overview councils on police behavior –

Sinixstar

06-23-2010, 4:37 PM

Do I see the "think of the children" argument?

OP: Given the context, that they are asking about a shooting, you admitted there's a rifle in the case, I think they have RAS to detain you at that point. If you admit there's a rifle in the case they can do a "e check" no matter the situation.

Correct.
Even if you don't admit there's a rifle in the case - if it's obviously a rifle case (many are), the case could be made that they had reason to believe you were armed, and they wanted to check the weapon for their own safety.

The question becomes if the 'e-check' still applies in one's home vs in a car. Every argument i've heard involving the e-check revolves around the fact that it's illegal to travel with a loaded weapon in your vehicle. The weapon must be stored according to state law (locked and unloaded).

If you're in your house - that's a whole other story. You have no legal requirement to keep your guns unloaded in your own house.

That said - i do believe there have been a number of cases in which an officer claiming he's looking out for his own safety has stood up against the "but it's my right..." argument. I would expect that if you're walking around with a rifle case in plain sight of the police - given the situation you outlined above - they will be looking at it one way or another, and there's likely very little you have to say on the subject.

Whether that's morally or ethically right is a whole other ball of wax...

HowardW56

06-23-2010, 4:41 PM

There were a couple of LEs in our three door apartment interviewing my wife about a shooting incident in the neighborhood the night before. They said they were doing house to house interviews on who may have heard or saw something.

If during that time, say I was on my way out to the garage with my rifle case, and oviously the LEs would know its a rifle case. If they ask whats inside and I do say its a rifle, can I say no if they want to see it? Being on the hallway and into the apartment garage, I dont think this is still considered private property, but having done nothing illegal, I would like to think that unless they have a warrant, then they cannot just force me to open the case?

Your thoughts?

You can say no to a search, but it they are intent on searching, they will...

IF they find anything, it may not be admissible in court. If you try to stop them from searching, you WILL go to jail...

Make your objection known, loud and clear, but if they decide to search anyway, do not resist.

If the police want to talk to me, we talk on the sidewalk in front of my home...

stix213

06-23-2010, 4:52 PM

I think that a reported shooting incident plus someone carrying a rifle case would easily be PC for a search of the case. If you tell them that there's a rifle in the case then they can check to see if it's loaded per PC 12031(e), even absent of the reported shooting situation.

I don't think 12031(e) applies here since that is only for public places, etc. I suppose it all depends on the layout of the apartment complex though

12031 PC:
(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for
the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized
to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.
Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to
this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of
this section.

leelaw

06-23-2010, 4:57 PM

12031(e) doesn't apply here since that is only for public places

Depends where this "hallway" is in the apartment. Is this a hallway inside the apartment, or -more likely- in a common area of the apartment complex between the apartment and the detached parking area.

Depends where this "hallway" is in the apartment. Is this a hallway inside the apartment, or -more likely- in a common area of the apartment complex between the apartment and the detached parking area.

If the latter is the case, then yeah, "really, really."

If the former, then "I do not consent to any searches."

We have a winner!

If it's the latter, it's a public place and they could do an (e) check.

If it's in the apartment, they need a warrant. There's no PC to think that you're the suspect and even if there was PC, I don't think this qualifies as an exigent circumstance to get around the warrant.

Oh, and you can ALWAYS say "no" to a search; even if they're legally allowed to search you, you can still say "no."

gemini1

06-23-2010, 6:20 PM

Depends where this "hallway" is in the apartment. Is this a hallway inside the apartment, or -more likely- in a common area of the apartment complex between the apartment and the detached parking area.

If the latter is the case, then yeah, "really, really."

If the former, then "I do not consent to any searches."

The apartment is one of those old style big houses, converted into an aprtment. Theres a two car driveway, the garage is part of the house (not detached). Access to the hallway is via a steel door, just happens that maybe it was left open the the LEs just walked right in and knocked on our main door.
I guess I was more curious about the law where they may state that its an apartment so the hallway is public access and not considered private property?

gunwurkz

06-23-2010, 6:22 PM

I would just be honest with them

gemini1

06-23-2010, 6:33 PM

I was honest to them in my what if scenario, I admitted its a rifle. My query was, am I in legal footing if I say no to their request of checking out the weapon? I know they can and will check it anyway, I was looking for the legality if any on the case of wheater the hallway and the garage that is not detached considered private property since it is an apartment?

Oh the other thing I wanted to clear out, since Leelaw mentioned that I should not consent, then there is likewise no problem for me to clean my weapons at the garage? I always clean my guns with the garage door partially open to let the fresh air in.

The Director

06-23-2010, 6:33 PM

I'm in the middle of taking a PC 832 class right now. Sure, you could refuse a search. But if they really wanted to, they could search. A warrantless search using the exigency of public safety (a shooting just occurred, after all) would be plenty.

Oh, by the way - you could say the whole I do not consent to a search bit, but ultimately, it would result in a detention and search anyways, with no apology EVEN if they found you to be 100% legit.

All the jailhouse lawyers really ought to take PC832 to find out what cops are really allowed to get away with. It would blow your mind,

sfpcservice

06-23-2010, 6:43 PM

I'm in the middle of taking a PC 832 class right now. Sure, you could refuse a search. But if they really wanted to, they could search. A warrantless search using the exigency of public safety (a shooting just occurred, after all) would be plenty.

Oh, by the way - you could say the whole I do not consent to a search bit, but ultimately, it would result in a detention and search anyways, with no apology EVEN if they found you to be 100% legit.

All the jailhouse lawyers really ought to take PC832 to find out what cops are really allowed to get away with. It would blow your mind,

I'll let the judge sort out what they can get away with. Isn't PC832 mostly taught by......COPS? No surprises that they will tell you all about what they can get away with. I'll keep saying I don't consent, because...I don't. How many people here willingly show their receipt at Best Buy also? :cool:

bodger

06-23-2010, 6:45 PM

I'm in the middle of taking a PC 832 class right now. Sure, you could refuse a search. But if they really wanted to, they could search. A warrantless search using the exigency of public safety (a shooting just occurred, after all) would be plenty.

Oh, by the way - you could say the whole I do not consent to a search bit, but ultimately, it would result in a detention and search anyways, with no apology EVEN if they found you to be 100% legit.

All the jailhouse lawyers really ought to take PC832 to find out what cops are really allowed to get away with. It would blow your mind,

Where do you take a class like that?

pullnshoot25

06-23-2010, 6:50 PM

This thread makes me want to beat myself with an axe.

N6ATF

06-23-2010, 7:32 PM

Never consent.

NEVER.

You're still thinking of consenting, aren't you?

STOP IT, YOU BLOODY MORON.

Imagine a tank barrel pointed at your head, and you have the choice whether the trigger is pulled.

Do you consent?

HELL NO!

*This is directed at everyone, not any specific person.

robcoe

06-23-2010, 7:54 PM

First rule in dealing with the police when they are asking to look at anything: There are only 2 words in the English language, No and Lawyer

You gain NOTHING from consenting to a search. If the cop thinks he has cause, or just wants to, he will do the search anyway. Saying yes just shuts out any options you might have had.

HokeySon

06-23-2010, 8:03 PM

There were a couple of LEs in our three door apartment interviewing my wife about a shooting incident in the neighborhood the night before. ...

Your thoughts?

You let them in to your apartment? Personally, I would never do that. I would only talk to them outside of my home.

HokeySon

06-23-2010, 8:12 PM

I'm in the middle of taking a PC 832 class right now. Sure, you could refuse a search. But if they really wanted to, they could search. A warrantless search using the exigency of public safety (a shooting just occurred, after all) would be plenty.

Oh, by the way - you could say the whole I do not consent to a search bit, but ultimately, it would result in a detention and search anyways, with no apology EVEN if they found you to be 100% legit.

All the jailhouse lawyers really ought to take PC832 to find out what cops are really allowed to get away with. It would blow your mind,

FAIL!! There ain't no exigent circumstances in the described scenario, the shooting was the night before. I think a couple of classes on constitutional law, criminal law and criminal procedure might be better.

Fate

06-23-2010, 8:33 PM

Never consent.

NEVER.

You're still thinking of consenting, aren't you?

STOP IT, YOU BLOODY MORON.

Imagine a tank barrel pointed at your head, and you have the choice whether the trigger is pulled.

Do you consent?

HELL NO!

*This is directed at everyone, not any specific person.

Awww come on. You don't have anything to hide do you? Just a little peek? :rofl:

N6ATF

06-23-2010, 8:43 PM

Awww come on. You don't have anything to hide do you? Just a little peek? :rofl:

Your life is sacred. Allowing ANY search could mean the death penalty for you, no matter your innocence. Do you consent?

NO.

pullnshoot25

06-23-2010, 8:49 PM

Never consent.

NEVER.

You're still thinking of consenting, aren't you?

STOP IT, YOU BLOODY MORON.

Imagine a tank barrel pointed at your head, and you have the choice whether the trigger is pulled.

Do you consent?

HELL NO!

*This is directed at everyone, not any specific person.

I love you :)

The Director

06-23-2010, 8:55 PM

I'll let the judge sort out what they can get away with. Isn't PC832 mostly taught by......COPS? No surprises that they will tell you all about what they can get away with. I'll keep saying I don't consent, because...I don't. How many people here willingly show their receipt at Best Buy also? :cool:

Who better to teach it?

AlexDD

06-23-2010, 9:00 PM

Check my blog for my recent "gun in a bag" encounter. I gave a critique of it so read it carefully.

Just listened to it. You may want to write the exchange up as a simple transcript since some parts are hard to hear.

Thank you for posting the audio.

sfpcservice

06-23-2010, 9:00 PM

Who better to teach it?

My point was, that it's like asking a crook if taking the TV is legal... Of course he will say yes; just as the Cop teaching the class might tell you he does have the right to search you just because he feels like it.

Just because either one of those two say it, doesn't mean it's legal.

gemini1

06-23-2010, 9:00 PM

You let them in to your apartment? Personally, I would never do that. I would only talk to them outside of my home.

Read post # 17. No one let them in, the steel door to gain entry to the hallway was left open by someone, and the cops just walks in and knocks on our door, they did not enter our home, the interview was at the hallway.

383green

06-23-2010, 9:02 PM

... STOP IT, YOU BLOODY MORON...

Needs a bigger font and more boldface! :p

Otherwise, :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

The Director

06-23-2010, 9:03 PM

Where do you take a class like that?

I'm taking it at Ben Clark training center in Riverside. It is taught by the Riverside County Sheriff dept.

Cost - $100 - and you get the certificate for life while also being taught about search, seizure, how to arrest, when to arrest, detentions, cuffing people, arm bars, choke holds, and baton work.

There is a new instructor every day. It's a five day, 40 hour course.

First day was a Sheriff's Captain. Second day was a Detective, third day, a Sergeant.

And you know what? Each of these "cops" were great guys, and totally delineated the respect for personal liberty. They were each very conservative in their values (maybe because it's Riverside). They totally changed my viewpoint on police in general.

And for all the armchair commandos out there, I took this class specifically for my own knowledge. Not for a job. Not because I need a new career. because I want to learn about the powers of Police and Peace officers and not just get people's warped (and negative) perception of police off of boards like this.

I love Calguns, don't get me wrong, but too many people on here spout off crap about searches, seizures, and arrests that they simply don't know jack **** about. And I'm not talking about the "right" people either (I have every confidence in them).

Do yourselves a favor. Go take the class. It's open to the public. It actually is for the public as cops go to academy to learn this. Room is filled with military, firefighters, and security guards who want to further their careers or learn more.

Oh, and the Ben Clark training facility is top notch.

robcoe

06-23-2010, 9:09 PM

Who better to teach it?

Someone without an interest in making you think they have more power then they do.

planedude86

06-23-2010, 9:13 PM

I love Calguns, don't get me wrong, but too many people on here spout off crap about searches, seizures, and arrests that they simply don't know jack **** about. And I'm not talking about the "right" people either (I have every confidence in them).

Some of the people who responded in this thread are lawyers. Your proposal of exigency in this scenario was countered by a lawyer. Also, just because a person attends PC 832 (or even an academy) does not mean that the person has a basic grasp of search/seizure, crimpro, and elements of crimes.

The Director

06-23-2010, 9:13 PM

Someone without an interest in making you think they have more power then they do.

So you've taken the course then? Because I was as anti cop as anyone here before I took it. I'm a changed man, dude.

Proof texts for the course consist of two documents - the California PC and the Constitution. Seriously.

There is no "secret cop manual" that is being handed out. We spent almost a day alone on proper use of force and let me tell you - these guys get lambasted when they use too much force or too little. They can't win and poor public opinion follows them.

Bhobbs

06-23-2010, 9:14 PM

What if you have a rifle case that is engraved with Ultra Extra Large Brief Case?

Do they still have the ability to check your brief case for a rifle?

The Director

06-23-2010, 9:17 PM

Some of the people who responded in this thread are lawyers. Your proposal of exigency in this scenario was countered by a lawyer. Also, just because a person attends PC 832 (or even an academy) does not mean that the person has a basic grasp of search/seizure, crimpro, and elements of crimes.

I proposed exigency because I honestly did not read the post fully where it said the shooting occurred the night before. I still stand by my statement that if a cop wants to do a search, they will almost always be able to do one.

So is taking PC832 a waste of time for the average person? You seem to have dismissed it with a flourish of your hand. I wanted to learn more, and I took it. Have you taken it?

Do you know more about the laws of seizure, search and arrest without taking it? Good on you. Sounds like no amount of knowledge will satisfy your lofty standards. Exactly the kind of keyboard commando I was referring to.

383green

06-23-2010, 9:23 PM

The advice to never consent to search and never talk to police has been provided by numerous actual lawyers, whose education has included a lot more than one 40 hour course. Calling everybody who disagrees with you a "keyboard commando" doesn't make your argument very compelling.

robcoe

06-23-2010, 9:25 PM

So you've taken the course then? Because I was as anti cop as anyone here before I took it. I'm a changed man, dude.

Proof texts for the course consist of two documents - the California PC and the Constitution. Seriously.

There is no "secret cop manual" that is being handed out. We spent almost a day alone on proper use of force and let me tell you - these guys get lambasted when they use too much force or too little. They can't win and poor public opinion follows them.

So you completely trust a police officer to interprete the bounds of his own powers. I assume you also believe that the president or congress can reinterprete the bounds of their power on their own, no need for the Supreme Court to exist.

When you take a glorified learning annex course like this what you are getting is the opnions and biases of the people talking that day, nothing more.

sfpcservice

06-23-2010, 9:28 PM

I'm taking it at Ben Clark training center in Riverside. It is taught by the Riverside County Sheriff dept.

Cost - $100 - and you get the certificate for life while also being taught about search, seizure, how to arrest, when to arrest, detentions, cuffing people, arm bars, choke holds, and baton work.

There is a new instructor every day. It's a five day, 40 hour course.

First day was a Sheriff's Captain. Second day was a Detective, third day, a Sergeant.

And you know what? Each of these "cops" were great guys, and totally delineated the respect for personal liberty. They were each very conservative in their values (maybe because it's Riverside). They totally changed my viewpoint on police in general.

And for all the armchair commandos out there, I took this class specifically for my own knowledge. Not for a job. Not because I need a new career. because I want to learn about the powers of Police and Peace officers and not just get people's warped (and negative) perception of police off of boards like this.

I love Calguns, don't get me wrong, but too many people on here spout off crap about searches, seizures, and arrests that they simply don't know jack **** about. And I'm not talking about the "right" people either (I have every confidence in them).

Do yourselves a favor. Go take the class. It's open to the public. It actually is for the public as cops go to academy to learn this. Room is filled with military, firefighters, and security guards who want to further their careers or learn more.

Oh, and the Ben Clark training facility is top notch.

Please, Please don't take my comments as contempt of cops. I know their value and respect what they do.

All I'm saying, is you don't necessarily take the cats word for it when the canary goes missing.

It's my right to say no....and if they DO have the right to search, they will do so anyway. So why ever say yes?

The Director

06-23-2010, 9:32 PM

When you take a glorified learning annex course like this what you are getting is the opnions and biases of the people talking that day, nothing more.

No, you're 100% right. Don't take the course, it's a glorified learning annex nothing good can come of it. Better to learn from you, oh mister300 posts, than actually go to where the cops are and learn their perspective.

You think they were all beating their chests about how much they could do? They actually spent most of the course telling us what they COULD NOT legally do, which is a healthy perspective.

robcoe

06-23-2010, 9:33 PM

No, you're 100% right. Don't take the course, it's a glorified learning annex nothing good can come of it. Better to learn from you, oh mister 14 posts, than actually go to where the cops are and learn their perspective.

No, if you want to know the law, go to law school or talk to a lawyer.

The Director

06-23-2010, 9:36 PM

Oh, and another thing, your disparagement of the course doesn't change the fact that it is the MINIMUM level required by POST to be a Peace Officer in the state of CA. It's an official course. Not a seminar. Not a bake sale. It's a real live POST course.

http://www.post.ca.gov/training/pc832.asp

planedude86

06-23-2010, 9:38 PM

I proposed exigency because I honestly did not read the post fully where it said the shooting occurred the night before. I still stand by my statement that if a cop wants to do a search, they will almost always be able to do one.

So is taking PC832 a waste of time for the average person? You seem to have dismissed it with a flourish of your hand. I wanted to learn more, and I took it. Have you taken it?

Do you know more about the laws of seizure, search and arrest without taking it? Good on you. Sounds like no amount of knowledge will satisfy your lofty standards. Exactly the kind of keyboard commando I was referring to.

You know almost nothing about me, so please don't assume. The PC832 course was created for the purpose of training peace officers, so it gives a peace officer perspective. There is not enough time in 40 hours to learn the intricacies of search/seizure, elements of crimes, and other aspects of criminal law. If taught well, it can be a good start, but it is not nearly sufficient.

The Director

06-23-2010, 9:39 PM

No, if you want to know the law, go to law school or talk to a lawyer.

How dumb is that? Are you going to get pulled over by a lawyer? Are you going to get arrested by a lawyer, or cuffed by a lawyer? You want to know what makes cops tick then go to the cops. Lawyers don't teach PC832.

You go do recon on what you perceive the to be the enemy, dude. That's what I did. And boy were my eyes opened. For the better.

The Director

06-23-2010, 9:42 PM

You know almost nothing about me, so please don't assume. The PC832 course was created for the purpose of training peace officers, so it gives a peace officer perspective. There is not enough time in 40 hours to learn the intricacies of search/seizure, elements of crimes, and other aspects of criminal law. If taught well, it can be a good start, but it is not nearly sufficient.

Sufficient for what? It was sufficient for my purposes.

So why don't you tell me about yourself, oh riddle wrapped in an enigma. Have you taken the course or not? Should I not take a course by virtue of the fact that it will not teach me everything I need to know?

Say what you want, but after taking and passing the course, I could be (if hired) a peace officer in the state. Good enough for me.

tenpercentfirearms

06-23-2010, 9:43 PM

I pretty much learned everything I know about my rights from www.calguns.net and www.flexyourrights.org. Why take a PC 832 class?

I actually went on a ride along on Monday with the Kern County Sheriffs in Taft and that was another good lesson. I found two meth pipes on a traffic stop. Later on another traffic stop the cop had a bad search and knew he screwed up, he was going to have to let the guy go until he found some dope in something he got permission to search and the guy admitted it was his. Criminals really are stupid.

Anyway, it is real simple. NEVER consent to searches. Period. You have a right to refuse a search at all times. So I honestly don't care if cops can or can't search me, my answer will always be "I don't consent to searches". If the judge says it was legit, then it was legit. The other thing that makes me always say no and not care is I don't have anything to hide either.

As far as a rifle case in the hallway, plain view might apply, but my understanding is cops really, really want consent or even better a yet a warrant for the home. You are afforded maximum protection in the home unlike being in a motor vehicle.

383green

06-23-2010, 9:44 PM

Your trumpeting of the course does not change the fact that you are not a criminal defense lawyer. I'll follow the legal advice of a guy who's spent a decade studying law over the legal advice of a guy who took the minimum POST course for fun. ;)

Come to think of it, I went and took a course on truck driving, and then even went and got my class A commercial driver's license... just for fun, not for work. And do you know what? You would not want me driving your double-trailer tanker truck, even though I've taken the minimum amount of training and passed the test. :p

The Director

06-23-2010, 9:47 PM

Your trumpeting of the course does not change the fact that you are not a criminal defense lawyer. I'll follow the legal advice of a guy who's spent a decade studying law over the legal advice of a guy who took the minimum POST course for fun. ;)

Come to think of it, I went and took a course on truck driving, and then even went and got my class A commercial driver's license... just for fun, not for work. And do you know what? You would not want me driving your double-trailer tanker truck, even though I've taken the minimum amount of training and passed the test. :p

You're missing my point. I never said "I know more than the criminal defense lawyers". If you (as the others do) feel there is no personal enrichment value in continuing education (even for fun), then that's your opinion. Don't take the course. I could care less.

sfpcservice

06-23-2010, 9:49 PM

PC 832 is "Powers of Arrest". Security Guards have to take it to learn how to do a "private persons arrest" (not a "citizens arrest", because you don't have to be a citizen to arrest someone guilty of a felony).

sfpcservice

06-23-2010, 9:50 PM

By the way...It probably is a really good and interesting class. I don't see any point in taking away from the class as people are doing.

383green

06-23-2010, 9:51 PM

How dumb is that? Are you going to get pulled over by a lawyer? Are you going to get arrested by a lawyer, or cuffed by a lawyer? You want to know what makes cops tick then go to the cops. Lawyers don't teach PC832.

No, lawyers don't teach PC832. They get charges dropped if a cop makes a bad search. They advise you to STFU and not consent to search. A cop may still search without your consent, but if they didn't do it properly then a good lawyer can get charges dropped... but if you consented to the search, they have a lot less to work with.

Consenting to search or agreeing to talk to cops only works against you. It never works for you. You don't have to believe me, a mere keyboard commando, but you should probably believe actual lawyers and actual cops when they tell you that:

i8z7NC5sgik

08fZQWjDVKE

The Director

06-23-2010, 9:56 PM

PC 832 is "Powers of Arrest". Security Guards have to take it to learn how to do a "private persons arrest" (not a "citizens arrest", because you don't have to be a citizen to arrest someone guilty of a felony).

It's much more than that. See my link. Also, Security guards take the BSIS courses which are far more abbreviated. They do not need PC832 because it's way overkill for what they do. The Security guards in this class are taking it because where they are posted (hospitals, universities) they are peace officers.

The Director

06-23-2010, 9:58 PM

No, lawyers don't teach PC832. They get charges dropped if a cop makes a bad search. They advise you to STFU and not consent to search. A cop may still search without your consent, but if they didn't do it properly then a good lawyer can get charges dropped... but if you consented to the search, they have a lot less to work with.

Consenting to search or agreeing to talk to cops only works against you. It never works for you. You don't have to believe me, a mere keyboard commando, but you should probably believe actual lawyers and actual cops when they tell you that:

Also, where did I say to consent to a search? Show me. You never consent to a search. Actually, consent to a search from a police perspective is a minefield of "he said she said" allegations. They always prefer to get a warrant when they can.

383green

06-23-2010, 9:59 PM

You're missing my point. I never said "I know more than the criminal defense lawyers". If you (as the others do) feel there is no personal enrichment value in continuing education (even for fun), then that's your opinion. Don't take the course. I could care less.

I have nothing against taking the course. I just got the impression that you were criticizing people who advocated not consenting to search, based on your taking the course and their not taking it, and called them derogatory terms such as "keyboard commando". However, the people advocating that were merely parroting advice from actual criminal defense lawyers (and even actual cops). The two videos I linked to above (two parts of a single presentation) are very enlightening, and they're presented by a very experienced law school professor and a very experienced cop. The "STFU and don't consent to search" advice has also been posted right here on CGN by actual practicing defense lawyers (including, but not limited to, Jason Davis, who goes so far as to put the advice right on his business cards to provide physical evidence of invocation of 5th amendment rights and refusal to consent to search, which is particularly relevant in the light of a very recent Supreme Court case regarding Miranda rights).

Taking the PC832 course for edutainment purposes is just fine. Just keep in mind that it's a training course for the people whose job is to lock you up, not a training course for people who wish to avoid being locked up.

And your 40 hour education covering how to arrest people trumps the legal advice of multiple practicing defense attorneys, law school professors and cops about how to avoid being arrested and avoid being successfully prosecuted. Gotcha. Can I order the T-shirt, too? I'm size XL. :rolleyes:

383green

06-23-2010, 10:05 PM

Also, where did I say to consent to a search? Show me.

Well, you did refer to the people saying "don't consent to search" as keyboard commandos. Maybe I read too much into that.

The Director

06-23-2010, 10:06 PM

I have nothing against taking the course. I just got the impression that you were criticizing people who advocated not consenting to search, based on your taking the course and their not taking it, and called them derogatory terms such as "keyboard commando". However, the people advocating that were merely parroting advice from actual criminal defense lawyers (and even actual cops). The two videos I linked to above (two parts of a single presentation) are very enlightening, and they're presented by a very experienced law school professor and a very experienced cop. The "STFU and don't consent to search" advice has also been posted right here on CGN by actual practicing defense lawyers (including, but not limited to, Jason Davis, who goes so far as to put the advice right on his business cards to provide physical evidence of invocation of 5th amendment rights and refusal to consent to search, which is particularly relevant in the light of a very recent Supreme Court case regarding Miranda rights).

Taking the PC832 course for edutainment purposes is just fine. Just keep in mind that it's a training course for the people whose job is to lock you up, not a training course for people who wish to avoid being locked up.

I watched those videos already. I thought I said that.

The Director

06-23-2010, 10:07 PM

And your 40 hour education covering how to arrest people trumps the legal advice of multiple practicing defense attorneys, law school professors and cops about how to avoid being arrested and avoid being successfully prosecuted. Gotcha. Can I order the T-shirt, too? I'm size XL. :rolleyes:

Dude, I never said that either.

I'm pretty sure my arrest education trumps yours, though. Unless you happen to have the same certificate already. You do have one, right?

383green

06-23-2010, 10:08 PM

I watched those videos already. I thought I said that.

I was still typing my reply when you posted yours in which you stated that you already saw them. I type slowly, I guess. ;)

The Director

06-23-2010, 10:09 PM

Well, you did refer to the people saying "don't consent to search" as keyboard commandos. Maybe I read too much into that.

If I came across that way, then my apologies. Not what I meant at all. I was railing against the people who insisted a search could not be performed by the police as if they knew all the little schemes the cops use to search, which I'm pretty sure they don't. Just for clarification:

1. Don't consent to a search
2. Doesn't mean the cops will not search anyways using a host of other legal devices.

383green

06-23-2010, 10:14 PM

If I came across that way, then my apologies. Not what I meant at all. I was railing against the people who insisted a search could not be performed by the police as if they knew all the little schemes the cops use to search, which I'm pretty sure they don't.

Apology accepted, and I offer my own apology if I misunderstood you. I'm a feral engineer, and I'm not well-socialized. :taz:

1. Don't consent to a search
2. Doesn't mean the cops will not search anyways using a host of other legal devices.

I agree. They'll do what they think that can and/or should do in order to do their job (locking you up if they think you're a bad egg), and at the same time you do everything you can to make them work for it and fail (assuming you're a good egg; bad eggs should cave in and plead guilty on the spot!).

pullnshoot25

06-23-2010, 10:19 PM

Also, where did I say to consent to a search? Show me. You never consent to a search. Actually, consent to a search from a police perspective is a minefield of "he said she said" allegations. They always prefer to get a warrant when they can.

If only that were true...

The Director

06-23-2010, 10:26 PM

If only that were true...

Heard a Police detective, Captain, and Sergeant from three different agencies say that consent was not always an airtight case and it was fraught with problems. These three guys at least, prefer warrants.

snobord99

06-24-2010, 12:07 AM

How dumb is that? Are you going to get pulled over by a lawyer? Are you going to get arrested by a lawyer, or cuffed by a lawyer? You want to know what makes cops tick then go to the cops. Lawyers don't teach PC832.

While these are valid points, you forget one important fact. Where do cops go when they have a question about what's legal? That's right, to a lawyer.

snobord99

06-24-2010, 12:12 AM

Heard a Police detective, Captain, and Sergeant from three different agencies say that consent was not always an airtight case and it was fraught with problems. These three guys at least, prefer warrants.

I agree that they prefer a warrant because it's the most open and shut case they can present for why something shouldn't be suppressed but that ignores the fact that over 90% of searches (and I'm being conservative) are performed without a warrant. While they prefer a warrant, most of the time what they want that's realistically obtainable is consent.

As far as the exigency goes, even if the gunshot was recent, if they have no reason to think the guy holding the case was the guy that fired the gun they still can't search it. The exigency is only relevant if there's probable cause.

N6ATF

06-24-2010, 12:17 AM

Heard a Police detective, Captain, and Sergeant from three different agencies say that consent was not always an airtight case and it was fraught with problems. These three guys at least, prefer warrants.

1. Don't consent to a search
2. Doesn't mean the cops will not search anyways using a host of other legal devices.

This pretty much sums it up.
If you clearly state you do not consent, that puts the burden on them to show why they searched in the first place.

Regardless - it's like they say - you might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride. If the police decide they want to make your day really really bad - they will. You can fight it after the fact, you can get your name cleared, but it's going to really suck in the process.

It would do everyone a great deal of good to keep that in mind in the future. Stand your ground, exercise your rights, but don't give the police reason to make your day go from bad to horrible. (I assume if you're talking to police about searches and checking your guns, it's already a bad day)

I think we've all seen advice handed out that borders on outright asking for a confrontation with the police. If you create a hostile/antagonistic environment - you will be met with resistance. I promise you that resistance is going to hurt you a lot more than it will hurt them. Just keep that in mind.

With all that said - to get back to the original point - whether the cops can search you or inspect your gun. The bigger issue is whether or not you should give them a reason to. Don't go walkin around in front of the cops with a gun in your hand, and the problem solves it's self. Pretty simple.

Bugei

06-24-2010, 8:41 AM

First rule in dealing with the police when they are asking to look at anything: There are only 2 words in the English language, No and Lawyer

You gain NOTHING from consenting to a search. If the cop thinks he has cause, or just wants to, he will do the search anyway. Saying yes just shuts out any options you might have had.

I think I'd add at least one word, because if all you say is "No Lawyer" I don't think things are going to work out right. :)

The apartment is one of those old style big houses, converted into an aprtment. Theres a two car driveway, the garage is part of the house (not detached). Access to the hallway is via a steel door, just happens that maybe it was left open the the LEs just walked right in and knocked on our main door.
I guess I was more curious about the law where they may state that its an apartment so the hallway is public access and not considered private property?

Can I walk in off the street and enter your hallway, or is there a door that seperates the hallway from "the general public"?

If there is a door, then as I see it, it would be the same as a closed gate on a fenced yard. They yard is not a public area, so the hallway would not be a public area. The hallway is probably accessible only to the other residents and not the general public.

I think I'd add at least one word, because if all you say is "No Lawyer" I don't think things are going to work out right. :)

good point, those two words should not be used in a phrase.

N6ATF

06-24-2010, 10:39 AM

But... but... I play a saxophone! :shifty:

Should be able to fit a pistol in a soft soprano sax case (lockable zippers) with some modification.

383green

06-24-2010, 10:51 AM

Should be able to fit a pistol in a soft soprano sax case (lockable zippers) with some modification.

Might even be able to fit a disassembled M4gery into a hard alto case.

snobord99

06-24-2010, 11:08 AM

Can I walk in off the street and enter your hallway, or is there a door that seperates the hallway from "the general public"?

If there is a door, then as I see it, it would be the same as a closed gate on a fenced yard. They yard is not a public area, so the hallway would not be a public area. The hallway is probably accessible only to the other residents and not the general public.

I wouldn't conclude that because there's a door (even a locked one) it's not a public place, legally speaking. The admittedly few cases I've looked at that address the issue tended to look at factors to determine if an area is a public place. Even if it was a complex with a door with a lock to get into the complex, I'm not sure that a hallway in a, let's say 10+ unit, apartment complex would be considered not a public place. It's possible, but I wouldn't assume it won't adjudicated a public place. It becomes more likely to be a public place the bigger the complex is.

gemini1

06-24-2010, 2:23 PM

Originally Posted by Decoligny
Can I walk in off the street and enter your hallway, or is there a door that seperates the hallway from "the general public"?

If there is a door, then as I see it, it would be the same as a closed gate on a fenced yard. They yard is not a public area, so the hallway would not be a public area. The hallway is probably accessible only to the other residents and not the general public.

I wouldn't conclude that because there's a door (even a locked one) it's not a public place, legally speaking. The admittedly few cases I've looked at that address the issue tended to look at factors to determine if an area is a public place. Even if it was a complex with a door with a lock to get into the complex, I'm not sure that a hallway in a, let's say 10+ unit, apartment complex would be considered not a public place. It's possible, but I wouldn't assume it won't adjudicated a public place. It becomes more likely to be a public place the bigger the complex is.

Decoligny:
Yes there's a steel door with lock, only the residents with keys can get in. But theres been a lot of times this door was left unlock and anyone for whatever intention can get in if they wanted to.

Snobord:
So you think that if its a bigger or a purposely built apartment complex, even if its locked/gated is considered public? Ah but wait a sec, if its a purposely built apartment complex, then theres a chance that the hallway may be built like an open walkway and not enclosed. If so then I would tend to lean on the side of this being public area, but if in my case, our apartment is a former private residence, where the hallway and garage are attached to the house and with lockable steel door to gain entry to the three door apartment, then this hallway and garage is private property?

snobord99

06-24-2010, 2:41 PM

Snobord:
So you think that if its a bigger or a purposely built apartment complex, even if its locked/gated is considered public?

Not exactly. As I said, I've not read that many cases on the issue, but the ones I have read, if I remember correctly, the court tends to look at a variety of factors to determine if the area at issue was a public place. It wasn't a simple "was there a lock on the door?" Whether there was a lock involved is a factor but it isn't dispositive.

Using 2 extremes as an example, if it was a house that was converted to a 2 unit apartment complex and there's a key needed to get into that house, I could easily see how that would be construed as not a public place. At the same time, a gated community with a thousand houses and 3,000 residents is generally "secured" so that not everyone could walk in and out, but that would probably still be a public place. The line between public and private place is probably somewhere between these two extremes; where it is between these two extremes, I don't know. It will be up to your lawyer to argue which of these extremes it's closer to and up to the judge to decide which extreme they feel it's closer to.

I wouldn't conclude that because there's a door (even a locked one) it's not a public place, legally speaking. The admittedly few cases I've looked at that address the issue tended to look at factors to determine if an area is a public place. Even if it was a complex with a door with a lock to get into the complex, I'm not sure that a hallway in a, let's say 10+ unit, apartment complex would be considered not a public place. It's possible, but I wouldn't assume it won't adjudicated a public place. It becomes more likely to be a public place the bigger the complex is.

A secure corridor, even if the gate or door is propped open from time to time, still implies that it is not a public area...

I've seen them. I'll point you to People v. Strider, 177 Cal. App. 4th 1393 which cites to both Krohn and White. "California courts have made clear that whether a particular location is a 'public place' or 'public area' depends on the totality of the facts of the individual case."

I'm not saying whether there's a gate is a minor factor (it's actually a big one), what I AM saying is that it's not a dispositive factor. In other words, having a locked door or gate doesn't mean it's automatically a non-public place. If you read White and Krohn, you'll note that both courts go into a discussion of what the facts of the case were with regards to the location in question; they're looking at the "totality of the facts" of the case. They don't just say "there was a gate that could be locked, it was not a public place."

While the courts recognize that if the gate or door is opened from time to time it can still be a non-public place I wouldn't assume they'd come to that same conclusion if the facts of the case included that the gate or door was never locked.

HowardW56

06-24-2010, 6:30 PM

While the courts recognize that if the gate or door is opened from time to time it can still be a non-public place I wouldn't assume they'd come to that same conclusion if the facts of the case included that the gate or door was never locked.